Publish a triage result to the dashboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses that publishing 'may make the triage readable by others,' warns that the tool will currently fail with a 'not configured' error, and instructs to ask the user first. This reveals side effects, failure behavior, and an important usage constraint beyond what the schema or annotations could convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action, then prerequisites, current status, and a final warning. It is somewhat verbose, but each sentence contributes necessary operational context. A tighter version could combine the configuration prerequisites, but the structure is logical and not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers the key operational context: what it does, what's needed to run, current deployment reality, and the need for user consent. It mentions the return value (shareable URL) but does not detail response structures or additional error cases beyond configuration. This is near-complete for the tool's purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers only 29% of parameters (only repo and owner have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'explanation and signals,' which loosely maps to summary/category and the signals array, but it does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings like runId or suggestedFix. This partial coverage merits a 3, as it adds some context but leaves many parameters to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Sends a triage's explanation and signals to a deployed ci-triage-dashboard instance, returning a shareable URL.' This uses a specific verb ('sends') and resource ('dashboard instance'), and differentiates it from siblings like record_triage_note by focusing on external publishing rather than local recording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: prerequisites (dashboardUrl and CI_TRIAGE_DASHBOARD_TOKEN), current deployment status, and a clear instruction to 'Ask the user before calling this once it is configured.' It does not name alternatives, but the warning about failure and permission-seeking make when-to-use clear. Slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.